Part 3

For the works of Faithorne or Loggan, Flatman or Lens, we must refer our readers to more elaborate books on miniature painting, and hasten forward towards the eighteenth century. Before we do so, however, it may be of interest that we should refer to an illustration in colour of a miniature which has not hitherto been represented in any book on this subject. It is a portrait which has been bequeathed through various owners as a likeness of _John Milton_ (Plate X.), and there is a good deal of evidence to support this very interesting attribution. It came from the Woodcock family, who state that it has been handed down in direct succession from Catherine Woodcock, whom Milton married as his second wife on the 12th of November 1656. She was the daughter of a Captain Woodcock, of Hackney, and the former owners of the miniature stated that their family home was in Hackney. Mrs. Milton had a baby girl on October 19th, 1657, and she and her child died in February 1658, when the miniature was given to her niece, who is stated to have been present at the confinement, and from her it came to its late owners, who only parted with it when actually compelled so to do. It therefore belonged to the Mrs. Milton who is immortalised by the poet in his twenty-third sonnet, where he speaks of her as

"My late espousèd saint, Brought to me like Alcestis from the grave,"

And adds

"... once more I trust to have Full sight of her in Heaven without restraint."

He says she

"Came vested all in white, pure as her mind Her face was veiled; yet to my fancied sight Love, sweetness, goodness, in her person shined So clear, as in no face with more delight. But, oh! as to embrace me she inclined, I waked, she fled, and day brought back my night."

If, as seems most probable, the attribution of this portrait is correct, it gives us a view of Milton at a period of his life of which we have no other portrait, for it must have been painted when he Was about 48, and it bears out Aubrey's remarks about him, in which he speaks of his reddish hair, of his "exceeding fayre complexion," of his oval face, and tells us that he was "a spare man." Apparently it was never engraved, and Deborah Milton seems to have known nothing about it, but as she was quite a child when her father's second wife died, and as the portrait passed away from the Milton family so quickly, it is very natural that we should have no other record of it than the miniature itself.

We now come to the eighteenth century, and without referring in detail to the men who preceded the foundation of the Royal Academy, would just mention one of the prominent miniature painters of the early days of the century, Christian Richter by name. He was the son of a Swedish silversmith who came to England in the time of Queen Anne, and settled down with his brother, who was a medallist and a die-sinker. His work is luminous and distinguished, marked by rather an excessive brilliance of red in the carnations, but by a very handsome colour scheme as a rule; the example we give in our colour plates, the portrait of _Prince George of Denmark_, the consort of Queen Anne (Plate XI.) from the Hodgkins collection, setting forth his characteristics in a satisfactory fashion.

The catalogues of the Royal Academy are full of the names of miniature painters. The period of its foundation was prolific in the number of limners it produced. Miniature painting was the fashion. There were half-a-dozen important painters, and two or three hundred lesser men. The greater men stand out distinctly. Of the lesser men, many are only names to us. Here and there we have scraps of information respecting their history, details concerning the place where they resided, a few dates, and now and again an inscription on the back of a miniature to guide us; but of the vast majority of those who exhibited at the early exhibitions we know little, and of many of them it is not necessary that we should know very much, as their work was neither especially remarkable, nor especially praiseworthy. In considering this period, however, one comment must be made. As a rule, each painter was individual and characteristic. He allowed the personal equation to take an important part in his work, and when the expert is once familiar with the characteristics of the painter, his miniatures can be found quite readily whether signed or not. It is this special personal quality which distinguishes the painters of the period from the host of miniature painters of the present day who have striven to revivify the art, but who in many cases have become mere copyists, and have not allowed personal characteristics to distinguish their work. With the names of the great painters many are familiar, Cosway, Plimer, Smart, Ozias Humphry, Engleheart, Edridge, and Grimaldi are all well known, and the collector is more or less familiar with the names of a few of the minor painters whose works are worth collecting, as, for example, Nathaniel and Horace Hone, Vaslet, and others. There is neither opportunity nor need, in an essay of this sort, to refer to them in detail, because we are not concerned here with anything more than a broad survey of the miniature art, and must not confine our attention to England only. The painters of the eighteenth-century offer a sharp contrast to those of the seventeenth, and comparison only makes the contrast the more evident. In the work of Cooper we have strength, power, dignity; in that of Cosway and of the artists of his period is refinement, dexterity, fascination, a spice of flippancy and at times a certain meretricious quality, but this latter is far less seen in Cosway himself than in the work of his followers and admirers. The public demanded something quite different from the artists of the eighteenth century from that which they asked of the earlier school; the work had to be done more quickly, and it must be more charming, sensitive, and radiant. In his skill for giving his sitters exactly what they wanted, and in setting forth on the ivory the dainty grace of the women of the eighteenth century, there was no one who could approach within measurable distance of Cosway himself; and there is a marvellous fascination about his exquisite work, an individuality which belongs exactly to the period and represents it in all its grace, lightness and flippancy.

Undoubtedly the nearest in merit to Cosway was Andrew Plimer, and some of his works are fascinating in their beauty, but in charm they are never equal to those of Cosway, and the peculiar mannerisms of the artist prevent them from being altogether satisfactory. Plimer had very little power of composition, and he invariably over-accentuated the eyes of his sitters, and constantly repeated a favourite pose either of head or figure, while the extraordinary wiry manner in which he delineated the hair marks out his work at once. Quite as noticeable is his affection for the appearance of his own daughters, and the very shape of their necks and brilliance of their eyes can be seen repeated over and over again in his portraits of other sitters. Less than most of his contemporaries was he able to break away from a strong personal characteristic; and eventually it became a species of obsession with him, so that his female portraits strikingly resemble one another.

John Smart was a painter of a different type, serious, solid, painstaking. His facial modelling is extraordinary in its accuracy, and his works, like those of Engleheart, appear to have been preferred by the more serious persons in society, whereas those of Cosway and Plimer were particularly appreciated by the gay and frivolous ladies of the Court circle, whose sun and centre was the Prince Regent.

There are miniatures by Cosway which are of pre-eminent beauty, so lightly and with such exquisite skill are they floated upon the ivory. The quality of the material had, of course, an intimate connection with the art of the painter. The seventeenth-century artists knew nothing of the brilliant surface of ivory, although it is possible that one at least of them had an inkling that a more luminous material than vellum, cardboard, or chicken-skin, could be found. There are two miniatures in existence, one of which is in the possession of the author of these pages, the work of Cooper, which are not painted on any of the materials usually adopted by him. This latter is painted on what was at first thought to be a piece of ivory, but microscopic investigation has revealed the fact that it is polished mutton-bone, and the painter has so altered his technique to adapt it to this curious experiment, that for the first moment one would hardly believe the miniature to be by Cooper at all. Its pedigree is, however, unassailable, and a closer investigation reveals many of the master's characteristics, but it is painted with a very fine brush, quite different to the usual broad, full sweep of his work, and it stands out as an interesting experiment on the part of the great painter, who was searching for some material more suitable for a particular style of work. Ivory was not employed until the time of William III., and it seems probable that one of the Lens family was the first to make use of it; but, once adopted, its use became very general, and in the prolific period of the eighteenth century, almost universal.

Cosway is said to have experimented in enamel, and certainly one enamel portrait, with his initials, is in existence. He drew very skilfully on paper, and a few of his miniatures are on that material. One of his works, signed and dated, is on silk, but all these were only experiments, and the greater number of his miniatures are on ivory, which material lends itself perfectly to his craft. In our opinion the finest miniature Cosway ever produced was his unfinished sketch of _Madame du Barry_, one of the greatest treasures of Mr. Pierpont Morgan's collection, and by his kind permission illustrated here in monotone (Plate XII.). It was painted in 1791 on the occasion when Madame du Barry came over to England to recover her jewels, and on her third visit to this country in that year. From this portrait a stipple engraving was made by Condé in 1794, but the miniature itself came into the possession of the Vernons, having belonged to a Miss Caroline Vernon who was maid of honour to Queen Charlotte. It was sold in London in 1902, when it passed to its present owner, and in grace, sweetness, and fascination, is unrivalled, even amongst his wonderful treasures.

Another delightful portrait from the same collection represents the oft-painted _Henrietta, Lady Duncannon_, who was afterwards Countess of Bessborough (Plate XIV., No. 2). She was sister to Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, and seems to have spent a great deal of her time in sitting for her portrait, all the artists of the day having painted her. This miniature is remarkable for the fact that it still remains in its original frame, a very magnificent one, richly set with superb diamonds.

Yet another charming portrait by Cosway (Plate XIV., No. 1) came from the Truro collection to Mr. Morgan. It represents _Lady Augusta Murray_, the daughter of Lord Dunmore, who became the wife of the Duke of Sussex, the 6th son of George III. It was her marriage which, although twice performed, in Rome and at St. George's, Hanover Square, was declared null and void under the Royal Marriage Act (12 Geo. III. cap. 11). Her daughter was Lady Truro. Lady Augusta was only painted twice, and on both occasions by Cosway.

Our coloured illustrations include three portraits of women by Cosway, _Viscountess St. Asaph_ (Plate XIII.), the _Countess of Rochford_ (Plate XV.) and _Princess Charlotte_ (Plate XVI.), all of them distinguished by Cosway's special method of painting the hair, and marked by that inimitable grace in which he excelled.

We also illustrate from Lord Hothfield's collection one of Cosway's more serious portraits of men, _The Earl of Thanet_ (Plate XVII.), set upon the usual blue cloudy background, in this instance a trifle paler than usual, and painted with convincing force in a very remarkable colour scheme.

Of the work of the more sedate painters, Smart and Engleheart, we are able to give many characteristic examples. From Lord Hothfield's collection come a splendid pair--_Mr. and Mrs. Percival_ (Plate XIX.), painted with that striking force which marks the best work of Smart, upon his usual greenish-grey background, and with very subtle but well-marked modelling in the features. His carnations were ever a little brick-dusty in tint, and he delighted in the ruddier tones of the face, but in depicting the shadows he had few rivals. Although there may be perhaps a certain want of inspiration in his somewhat quaker-like method of work, and in the very low tone of his colouring, yet there is an honesty and a straightforward quality about it which is very attractive, and perhaps that was the reason why Cosway in the words of praise he gave to a painter so different from himself, spoke of him as "honest John Smart."

Engleheart's work has a certain resemblance to that of Reynolds, and the devotion which Engleheart felt towards the President of the Academy had an evidently strong effect upon his own art. He copied Sir Joshua's works over and over again, and gradually a good deal of the influence of the great master permeated the work of his follower. His miniatures were nobler, broader, and far better set upon the oval of the ivory than were those of many of his contemporaries, his draughtsmanship was excellent, and there was a brilliance about his painting of the eyes which is particularly attractive. The large portrait of _Earl Beauchamp_ (Plate XX.), from the collection of Lady Maria Ponsonby, is a fine specimen of his best work; but those of _Mrs. Sainthill_ and _Mr. Brundish_, from the collection of Lord Hothfield (Plate XXII.), are good examples of his smaller miniatures, possessing a great deal of charm and delightful in colour. His portrait of _Miss Mary Berry_, from Mr. Pierpont Morgan's collection (Plate XXI.), is quite one of his finest portraits of women. He painted both these sisters, and for a long time the two portraits were in one case, facing one another, but they have now been separated, and lie side by side in the cabinet. The two ladies were well known as being the close friends of Horace Walpole, who treated them with the greatest tenderness and affection, addressed to them many of his most brilliant letters, and persuaded them to settle down near him at Strawberry Hill. To them he dedicated his catalogue of treasures, and bequeathed a considerable sum of money, and his works and letters were, after his death, edited by Mary Berry, one of the sisters, who lived down till 1852, and died at the advanced age of ninety. From the same collection we have selected two delightful works by Smart, those representing _Sir Charles Oakeley_ and a lady whose name is unknown (Plate XVIII.), both distinguished by the elaboration of flesh tints, so quietly and so accurately applied.

The very brilliant, if somewhat flashy, work of Andrew Plimer is particularly well represented in Mr. Pierpont Morgan's famous collection, because it includes the notable series representing Rebecca, Lady Northwick, and her three daughters, all of which are given in our monotone illustrations (Plates XXIII. and XXIV.). Plimer was an adept at flattery, and in this particular case the mother looks hardly older than her daughters, and the three girls are so much alike that one has to look exceedingly closely to notice the position of the band round the head, or of the curl which falls upon the neck, before one girl can be distinguished from another. The same unfortunate mannerism belonging to this clever painter can be seen in _The Three Sisters Ellis_, brilliant works by Andrew Plimer from the collection of Lord Hothfield, and here illustrated in colour (Plate XXV.). When closely regarded it is quite evident that the three girls are very different from one another, but at the first glance we almost wonder how their parents could have known them apart. The painter himself has been led to make little changes in their costume in order that each girl's identity should be preserved, and our remark respecting the exaggeration of the eyes is exemplified in these three very beautiful portraits. By the same painter is the charming representation of _Selina Plimer_, the artist's youngest child, from the collection of the writer of this essay (Plate XXVI.). This miniature came from Plimer's own portfolio, and bears his handwriting upon it. It is very graceful and light in its treatment. The Rushout girls form the subject of the largest painting ever executed by Plimer. His well-known group showing these three girls in one miniature now belongs to Mr. George J. Gould, and is fully described in the life of Andrew Plimer.

In Lord Hothfield's collection, however, is an interesting sketch (Plate XXVII.), a group of the three sisters, evidently his first idea, quite different both in composition and in execution to the finished picture. It came from Plimer's studio, is unmistakably his work, and particularly interesting as a fresh and original idea, even more charming in many ways than the finished picture. In the latter, the girls dress their hair quite differently to what they had it in the sketch, and very possibly the _esquisse_ was made on their first visit to the studio, as they stood together that the artist might get an idea of how they looked. Another example of Plimer's work illustrated here in colour is from the same collection, and represents _Mrs. Bailey_ (Plate XXVIII.). It is a pleasing picture, though the curious wiriness of hair to which we have drawn attention is very noticeable in it. One of the prettiest pictures that Plimer ever painted of a child is the one which we illustrate in reduced size from the collection of Lady Maria Ponsonby (Plate XXIX., No. 1). It represents _Sir Charles Kent as a Boy_, playing upon a drum, and is a bright, piquant little picture.

Nathaniel Plimer's work is rarer than that of his brother, and we know very little indeed of the history of the artist. He was a curiously unequal painter. There were times when he could paint far better than his brother, but there are not perhaps more than two or three of his miniatures to which this high praise can be given. His general work is pleasing and agreeable, but does not betoken extraordinary skill. One of the best of his ordinary miniatures is in Lord Hothfield's collection (Plate XXIX., No. 2), and represents _Mrs. Dawes_. It is dated 1798, and is quite a fine picture, but not equal in high merit to two works by this master in the late Mr. Salting's collection, the finest examples of Nathaniel's work we have yet seen.

Ozias Humphry was a greater man than Plimer, but his work in miniature is rare. His draughtsmanship was exceedingly good, his colouring quiet and restrained, and his technique so elaborate, with such fine stipple work, that it has a general resemblance to that of enamel, but differs from this latter because it is not hard in its execution; and there is, moreover, an atmospheric quality about it very attractive. One of Humphry's peculiarities is to be noticed in the elongated shape he gave to the eyes of his sitters, what has been well termed "a greyhound eye," affording a marked contrast to the exceedingly round, over-bold eye, which Plimer was so fond of accentuating. Humphry drew children exquisitely, and his portrait of the _Duchess of Albany_ as a child (Plate XXX., No. 1), in the possession of Lord Hothfield, is one of the most delightful miniatures with which we are acquainted. In it his accuracy of draughtsmanship is seen to perfection, and the modelling on the face is so dainty and delicate that the miniature is quite a little gem full of life and vivacity, while the child is represented with a demure, amused look, which is refreshing and natural. There is a very interesting history connected with this miniature. It was painted in Rome in 1773, when Humphry was there with Romney, and it eventually belonged to Horace Walpole, and was in his collection at Strawberry Hill. He is said to have received it from Sir Horace Mann, his great friend and correspondent, who was watching Prince Charles Edward (_de jure_ Charles III.), on behalf of the English Government. The other Humphry, which we illustrate from the same collection, represents the _Countess of Thanet_ (Plate XXX., No. 2), and is an excellent example of the manner in which Ozias painted a noble lady of a quiet, studious character. The colour scheme in this, again, is very pleasing.

Time would fail to describe the host of minor men who exhibited at the Academy, and it would be impossible to illustrate works by even the chief of them. We have selected just a few; first, an example of the work of John Smart the younger, who is especially well known for his fine pencil work, and for some wonderful copies from drawings by Holbein. There are very few of his miniatures in existence; and the one of _Lieutenant Lygon_ (Plate XXXI.), in the collection of Lady Maria Ponsonby which is signed and dated, is a good, natural, life-like portrait, well drawn and composed. Then we would refer to Nathaniel Hone, who was an interesting person, and deserves to be remembered because he was the first artist in the eighteenth century to have what we now call a "one-man show." There is not a great deal of credit belonging to him for this adventure, because, had he not been a very sensitive and passionate man, and painted a picture which annoyed the Academy, the one-man show would never have come off.

In a painting called "The Conjuror" Hone was considered to have made an attack upon the President and upon Angelica Kauffman. It was rejected by the Academy, and in 1775 Hone opened his exhibition at 70, St. Martin's Lane, issued a catalogue, to which he affixed a preface, telling the story of his discomfiture from his own point of view, and appealing to the people respecting the merits of his paintings. The result was not particularly satisfactory, because it was felt that he had been in the wrong. The catalogue is a very rare one, and the whole story is rather interesting in its details.

A fine portrait by Horace Hone, the elder son of Nathaniel, representing William Pitt is in the collection of Lady Maria Ponsonby, and appears in our coloured illustrations (Plate XXXII., No. 2). Horace Hone was a better painter than his father. He excelled in enamel work, and his finest portraits are in that medium. He had a fine sense of colour and loved rich effects of velvet brocade, satin, or fur. Another of his miniatures is in Lord Hothfield's collection, and represents _Lady Mary Nugent_; it is signed and dated, and the owner has kindly permitted us to illustrate it in these pages (Plate XXXII., No. 1).

Yet another miniature from Lord Hothfield's collection illustrates the work of Vaslet (Plate XXXIII.), of whom we know hardly anything, save that he lived in York and Bath and that he was a clever worker in pastel. He seems to have visited Oxford in 1779, 1780, and 1789, and there is a good collection of his pastel portraits on paper in the Warden's Lodge at Merton College, the portraits carefully signed and dated; on the majority of them the artist calls himself as L. Vaslet of Bath. There are other collectors in Oxford who have specimens of his work in pastel, but in miniature his paintings are very rare. They are distinguished by a cloudy, flocculent appearance, very much resembling pastel work, and making it evident that the artist was more at home in the use of that material than he was in water-colour.